the only solution — dussias

What does only IT can or can’t be actually solve?

The problem of what is and what is not.

It's the problem of agreeing on something, of deciding, even if it doesn't make sense whether it can be agreed or decided upon.

It's the ultimate question, for which any answer or viewpoint is valid while none of them are.

It's the fish we can barely spot in the pond; whom no matter what our harpoon will never even graze.

Yeah, I suppose there are cases where IT is the only valid answer, while at the same time not answering anything. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule, whereas it’s much more efficient just to say I don’t know.

maybe, but we know to some extent what we're talking about.

Exactly, and that is the rule. Just makes me wonder why we need to even consider questions for which the answers are altogether quite worthless. Pretty simple, actually; if everything is questionable, just don’t question everything. Only question stuff for which an answer is both possible and rational.

Oh....and you thought wrong: “the previous statement” is, not so much a lie, but catastrophically false. What we think about and name can be real; it’s just that the means for doing it, are not the same kind of real. In other words, things named and thought about are physically real, the representations of them are not, yet still real in another sense.

Just sayin’. Do with it as you wish.

"catastrophically false" made me chuckle!

If everything is questionable, just don’t question everything. Only question stuff for which an answer is both possible and rational. — Mww

This is a great framework for efficiency, but maybe not the best for discerning knowledge.

I was about to ask about your definition of real, but doing so would be missing the whole point. Still, I'd be happy to read it.

Do with it as you wish.

An easily underestimated statement.

This is a great framework for efficiency, but maybe not the best for discerning knowledge. — dussias

A pox...POX, I say....on language philosophers. Now, if you please, excuse me while I indulge in it.

Knowledge is not discerned, it is a consequence of a logical process, in effect, an acquisition.
————

If you were going to ask, but decided not to ask, it doesn’t matter what the response would be, for a judgement has already been made as to its relevance. In this case, it is, much to my chagrin, against me, for it seems your point would be missed by whatever my definition might be. Some would say that’s rather presumptuous....but not me. I readily admit to missing the point, insofar as I find the grounds for whatever it might be, as given so far, suspect.

Real: that to which an object can be thought to belong necessarily.
————-

”Do with it as you wish.”

An easily underestimated statement. — dussias

Could be. But actually, it’s pretty hard to underestimate something so ill-defined as “as you wish”.

Real: that to which an object can be thought to belong necessarily. — Mww

I like this definition, but mind Russell's Paradox: A set cannot contain itself. Maybe "thought to pertain to" instead of "belong"?

something so ill-defined as “as you wish”. — Mww

Agreed, but it's a darn elegant way to say it.

Maybe "thought to pertain to" instead of "belong"? — dussias

Compromise: subsumed under, rather than pertain to?

Nonetheless shall I insist on “necessarily”. (Stomps foot...exits stage right)

Where would we be without elegance.